14th November Movement for Left Unity

[Lo Siento.]

I'd probably disagree with the term 'massive' here too but it is an integral and arguably essential element.

I wouldn't say "essential" either. I think if immigration was substantially reduced, I don't think there would be a substantial enough shortage of workers to tip the balance in labour's favour, particularly given the weakness of the unions.

Agree on the technology too - this is where I think the autonomists and other have it spot on in emphasising the importance of technology as in class struggle. And I'd agree its application, like everything else in the economy/workplace should be under democratic (workers) control. And its use to undermine wages should be resisted in the short term as well. Not necessarily by opposing its implementation full stop but by insisting that if it is applied we should get at least some of the benefits - shortened working day on the same money so jobs aren't lost, that kind of thing - the result (if it wasn't defeat) might be that the tech isn't introduced cos the boss won't benefit but I don't think that makes it a form of neo-luddism - the aim isn't to stop it being introduced but to at least stop it being introduced to our detriment at at best have it introduced so it benefits us. Because despite the much needed revisionism the luddites weren't just about retaining control of the labour process IMO - they were also trying to defend a dying craft (which I can understand - I'm a craftsman with great pride in my craft, even though I can't perform it any more for reasons I can't be arsed to go into and I'd hate to see my craft die and the skills I have get lost). Maybe neo-luddism is better defined than I'm aware of and does take into account that kind of thing, I dunno.

The Luddites were many things, some wanted control, some wanted state regulation, others wanted to defend their historic craft by whatever means they could (of course, they didn't have the hindsight of 200 year of capitalist development as a guide to action, so it's understandable). Incidentally, if you look at the introduction of technology in heavily unionised sectors in the 1970s, for all the guff about "restrictive practices", the right to negotiate and get some of the benefit is essentially what people fought for (and often got). Virtually no incidents of workers fighting new tech wholesale.

In a roundabout/indirect way I think there should be democratic control over economic migration too, but not movement of people. Not got it fully worked out but I think in a socialist (as opposed to proper communist) society we'd have democratic workers institutions - like unions only not the left wing of capital (lol) type ones we have now - which would decide how work is allocated. And this doesn't have to be a 'wait for socialism' solution either - it's been done (albeit imperfectly) before - I think the US dockers union used to control the allocation of work. That way you get solve core of the problem without needing to resort to policing borders and stopping people going wherever the fuck they want, which I'm in favour of as a cast iron principle.

Because unless you're a racist (and most of the people I know with concerns about migration are not) it's the economic impact that matters, not having too many foreigners here per se, or its impact on culture or whatever. If they didn;t perceive it to be being used to undermine their pay and conditions I don't think any of the people I know with these concerns would have a problem with it.

I guess this would have to be organised as internationally as possible to prevent it leading in potentially nationalist directions (British unions only overtime to British workers when others need the work - there's various potential problems that I'm sure we can all have a good go at identifying) but I reckon something could be worked out. Cos this is the crux of it IMO - both immigration controls and 'open borders' under capitalism, like everything else the capitalist state does, will be used to benefit capital (though the extent to which this happens depends on class struggle - I don't think they've got free rein before I'm accused of denying w/c agency). Who controls it is what really matters, just like with the technology.

Well this was effectively what the old Dock Labour Scheme did here in the UK. You could only work at a registered port if you were on the list, and the list was regulated by the Dock Labour Board (which was tripartite management-union-state). It's very difficult to design such a thing in a way that doesn't privilege the rights of one group of workers over another, tbh. The effect of the scheme was that access to the list was basically kinship based, which of course de facto excluded most immigrants (amongst others). Very difficult to avoid it going in nationalist directions unless, like you say, it's an internationalised structure. By the by, I also don't think that workplace competition is the main friction here. Those dockers were able to regulate access to their work, but some London dockers did organise a Pro-Powell demonstration in 1968, which was largely due to tension over social resources (especially housing supply). For me, a firm pledge to match social spending and housing provision (esp. council housing) to population numbers at local level would be far more worthwhile.

But the point I've been trying to get across - clumsily it appears - is that regardless of how important you or I think it is (and tbh I think we largely agree) a hell of a lot of people - a majority if those I know are anything to go by - do think immigration is a big part of the reason why pay and conditions have worsened. I'm not saying indulge these people's IMO wrong ideas or anything like that - I'm just saying it's pointless and counterproductive to deny that it's been used this way, just as the tech has - because it has been. Instead, as well as pointing out the other causes of these problems, I prefer to be honest about it and say yes, it has been used in this way. But to then say why I don't think border controls are any kind of solution - for workers in the UK or anywhere else. And to advocate instead, in the short term, organising migrant and, for want of a better term, native workers together so it can't be used in that way and in the long term, to mimic ayatollah, SOCIALISM (ie democratic control of the means of production).

No massive disagreement with that, although I think I'd always argue that restricting capitalism's access to all the labour it wants is as unrealistic a demand as anything a socialist revolutionary would make, it simply isn't going to happen. Rich countries are going to hoover up whoever they need to do the work cheaply, whether people like it or not. The question isn't whether that's going to happen, it's what happens to people when they get here. Will we let them be marginalised and exploited? Or all fight together for better treatment?

I'm being dead long winded and probably not that coherent cos I'm knackered and a bit stoned but I hope I'm getting the point across.

Wish I was that coherent when high.

 

[treelover]

https://www.facebook.com/The14thNovemberMovementLeftPartyUk


L/U is in lots of media today:, Express, Herald, Al Jazeera, they cancelled a 'Maria must go' demo at No 10 this morning, but the media team at L/U is top notch and is still getting interviews, etc.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I wouldn't say "essential" either. I think if immigration was substantially reduced, I don't think there would be a substantial enough shortage of workers to tip the balance in labour's favour, particularly given the weakness of the unions.

Depends IMO - I think it would make a substantial difference in some sectors of the economy. I'm thinking (very unappealing) seasonal agricultural work. I grew up in Peterborough and a lot of the lads I grew up with used to do it, it was organised as 'ganging' and very well paid indeed - because if it wasn't most people would rather be on the dole than do it. Now they can get eastern Europeans to do it for minimum wage and take most of that off them for accommodation. I don't think that's a reason to do it but it's there. I actually said on the thread about a socialist position on migration (can't remember exactly what it was called) that migration is a social fact now and border controls would just result on the one hand in companies taking the work to where labour is cheaper and on the other increased human trafficking resulting in an even more easily exploited section of the workforce with no rights whatsoever, putting even greater pressure on wages (which is what I was getting at when I said restrictions would be used to undermine wages in exactly the same way as legal migration is - to use a Marxism by numbers expression it's ultimately about the balance of class forces). It's an argument that in my experience works better (and is more honest) than the 'migration doesn't make any difference' one (which is IMO not completely true).

The Luddites were many things, some wanted control, some wanted state regulation, others wanted to defend their historic craft by whatever means they could (of course, they didn't have the hindsight of 200 year of capitalist development as a guide to action, so it's understandable). Incidentally, if you look at the introduction of technology in heavily unionised sectors in the 1970s, for all the guff about "restrictive practices", the right to negotiate and get some of the benefit is essentially what people fought for (and often got). Virtually no incidents of workers fighting new tech wholesale.

Yeah - I wasn't suggesting that was what happened (in the 70s) I remember from in a documentary about the miners strike (Strike! when britain went to war - bit shit but worth a watch for some revealing comments by coppers and a few other interesting bits) that twat Kelvin Mackenzie moaning about it with the print unions - probably exaggerated but he basically says they were demanding extra money to operate computers and assurances that no jobs would be lost. Problem is that the new tech is generally easier to train people on than it is to train someone in a craft, which makes replacing staff easier and therefore makes union busting easier and maintaining a high degree of organization more difficult - not sure where I'm going with this, just putting some thoughts out there. (got fuck all to do with migration mind you)

Well this was effectively what the old Dock Labour Scheme did here in the UK. You could only work at a registered port if you were on the list, and the list was regulated by the Dock Labour Board (which was tripartite management-union-state). It's very difficult to design such a thing in a way that doesn't privilege the rights of one group of workers over another, tbh. The effect of the scheme was that access to the list was basically kinship based, which of course de facto excluded most immigrants (amongst others). Very difficult to avoid it going in nationalist directions unless, like you say, it's an internationalised structure. By the by, I also don't think that workplace competition is the main friction here. Those dockers were able to regulate access to their work, but some London dockers did organise a Pro-Powell demonstration in 1968, which was largely due to tension over social resources (especially housing supply). For me, a firm pledge to match social spending and housing provision (esp. council housing) to population numbers at local level would be far more worthwhile.

Good point re: housing provision - as I said it's not a fully thought through solution, just a vague idea of what might work - I don't see any reason why union allocation of work couldn't work alongside that kind of pledge. And I'd rather it be union allocation than tripartite.

No massive disagreement with that, although I think I'd always argue that restricting capitalism's access to all the labour it wants is as unrealistic a demand as anything a socialist revolutionary would make, it simply isn't going to happen. Rich countries are going to hoover up whoever they need to do the work cheaply, whether people like it or not. The question isn't whether that's going to happen, it's what happens to people when they get here. Will we let them be marginalised and exploited? Or all fight together for better treatment?

Completely agree, and that's a point I've argued on other threads myself. But it's about the starting point for me - which is to accept that EU migration has been used as part of a policy mix that pushed down wages and conditions rather than trying to deny it - and to work from there. To accept that legal migration has been used in this way is not to say border controls that criminalise migration wouldn't also, nor is it to say it wouldn't make it even worse. (think your last two sentences are a more articulate way of phrasing what I meant in the last sentence of the passage the above quote was a response to)

 

[SpackleFrog]

It seems like a pretty direct and logical assumption to me. Someone argues that mass immigration constitutes a "massive, massive" part of neo-liberal wage suppression, why wouldn't we expect
curtailing it to have a substantial effect? I'm not saying that you or SpackleFrog have argued for that at all.

As to the impact of technology, I think the fact that technological innovations do displace and deskill workers does imply a certain form of political opposition, a form of neo-luddism, where we advocate democratic control of technology and technological change. Where does that leave you if you apply the same thinking to immigration? Democratic control of immigration? By who? And how?

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to imply that anyone is advocating closing the borders or anything like that, and don't think anyone on this thread has "unpalatable politics". I just think you're wrong about the significance of immigration in the processes we're describing.

"Massive" was an overstatement, fair enough. Got carried away. But the global economy isn't like a series of switches - now that there is an existing trend of economic migration playing a role in wage suppression simply stopping immigration wouldn't lead to an increase in wages. Indeed, if anything it could potentially increase outsourcing. Pretty much the only thing that ever significantly increases wages is class struggle.

immigration has virtually no long term hit on wages. You can see that in the building trade in London for example, lots of immigration into the trade, lots of work, lots of people earning north of £75k etc, more.

What about the six million Brits who work outside the UK? Are they suppressing wages? Is there a balance? And so on...

Basically the neo-liberalism came first. The immigration aspect is secondary. It doesn't make people who are confused about it racists. I also think the statement about `open borders` is meaningless at best and bad judgement at worst. No country can have 7bn people coming to live in it.

Immigration can temporarily hit wages for the very poorest - you know those are often other in situ immigrants - that is true, and the poor should be protected against that (scrap zero hours contracts, better rights for employees, stop subsidising corporations to pay British people zip etc etc etc). But wages have been attacked for decades now. You will have heard the term `wage restraint`. You will remember at the start of the 1980s unemployment going from 720,000 people to over 3mn people creating a vast over supply of labour, lowering wages. The political establishment has ignored this for 35 years, profited from it even, and once again tries to say it isn't their fault it's that Polish bloke down the road who works as a carpenter. And so on...

I agree with a lot of what you've said there but I've quoted stuff I don't agree with. Talking about people in the building trade in London earning upwards of £75k is all well and good but it just isn't the full picture - do you think agency construction workers or migrant labourers are on that kind of money?

You're right, neoliberalism did come first, and it's suppressed wages for over 30 years. Within that broader process I'm not sure where you get stats that can show immigration isn't having an effect on wages - what can you compare it to? In any case I would agree that middle class professions haven't seen an impact but that low wage low skill jobs have and it is more pronounced and long term than you give it credit for.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I actually said on the thread about a socialist position on migration (can't remember exactly what it was called) that migration is a social fact now and border controls would just result on the one hand in companies taking the work to where labour is cheaper and on the other increased human trafficking resulting in an even more easily exploited section of the workforce with no rights whatsoever, putting even greater pressure on wages (which is what I was getting at when I said restrictions would be used to undermine wages in exactly the same way as legal migration is - to use a Marxism by numbers expression it's ultimately about the balance of class forces). It's an argument that in my experience works better (and is more honest) than the 'migration doesn't make any difference' one (which is IMO not completely true).

Exactly. It's not about being pro or anti immigration any more than it's about being against the weather - it's just material reality and you need to be able to respond to it.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I don't want to be that prick who moans about thread drift, but I'm going to be.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I don't want to be that prick who moans about thread drift, but I'm going to be.

Shame though because it is a fairly decent debate for an emotive topic which can so often descend into the worst kind of shitflinging (and yes I accept I'm just as guilty of that as anyone when the mood overcomes me)

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Shame though because it is a fairly decent debate for an emotive topic which can so often descend into the worst kind of shitflinging (and yes I accept I'm just as guilty of that as anyone when the mood overcomes me)

It is a good discussion, but it would be better on its own thread.

 

[treelover]

They have started a petition to stop Miller getting the 17'000, quick off the mark but I think she has now donated to charity.

 

[belboid]

They have started a petition to stop Miller getting the 17'000, quick off the mark but I think she has now donated to charity.

yup, it shows as a success on the change.org page - mark it up as the first victory all down to LU!

 

[belboid]

on another note....I started writing up a piece on LU's short and medium term chances of success. I got bored of writing 'Left of Labour' so decided to abbreviate it.

And then rapidly decided I better keep writing it out longhand.

 

[SpackleFrog]

It is a good discussion, but it would be better on its own thread.

Oh, c'mon, it's better than talking about left unity voting against left unity.

 

[belboid]

Oh, c'mon, it's better than talking about left unity voting against left unity.

Do you know the outcome on agreeingto a non-aggression pact with other left groups in elections? I thought it had been completely rejected, but then was told tonight that a pact with TUSC, but no one else, had been agreed.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Do you know the outcome on agreeingto a non-aggression pact with other left groups in elections? I thought it had been completely rejected, but then was told tonight that a pact with TUSC, but no one else, had been agreed.

Not really sure - we've asked for talks, non-aggression, etc. Nobody involved in LU has suggested to me that they would stand against TUSC, and they agree if I bring it up that it would be ludicrous to stand against each other. But then LU aren't standing any candidates for a while at least so it depends on what happens with TUSC in the locals this year. That said, apart from LR, MH and maybe OC I have no idea who or what LU In Sheffield is so I'm probably not clued in.

 

[belboid]

OC? Oc, OC,OC...I dont think they'd know either! No plans to stand at all this year, hopefully not next either (well, maybe in one ward where TUSC are currently standing...)

 

[SpackleFrog]

OC? Oc, OC,OC...I dont think they'd know either! No plans to stand at all this year, hopefully not next either (well, maybe in one ward where TUSC are currently standing...)

How involved are the ISN in LU? Or is it sort of personal preference?

 

[belboid]

How involved are the ISN in LU? Or is it sort of personal preference?

ish

 

[SpackleFrog]

I was moaning about LU getting coverage earlier on the thread but Nellist is on the Daily Politics at noon today. Lets see if he gets more than a minute this time.

 

[nino_savatte]

1) I've already said - on this very thread - that EU migration policy is not open borders.

2) How can you deny the implication that anyone with concerns over immigration is racist and then go on to say:

Quite easily. I'm old enough to remember the 1970s and the 'debate' then was exactly the same as it is now. Nothing has changed.

I'm already quite well rested but thanks for the concern. Why do they 'invariably' raise questions about national identity and ethnicity and how? Can you point to where they've raised these questions on this thread? If they invariably do then they must have. And if they really do raise these questions doesn't that imply that those who have concerns over the consequences of economic migration are racist? If not how do they raise these questions and what are the implications thereof?

My point is a more general one. Who are you referring to when you say "they"? treelover? treelover is obsessed with immigration and the notion of "open borders". Even the word "migration" is used misleadingly. People migrate all the time. They migrate within national borders and they emigrate to other countries. I've even migrated within London. Interestingly, those who whine about immigration never once mention those who've left the country (emigrated). This is especially the case with Migration Watch UK (who have close ties to the Francis Galton Society).

And why the scare quotes around 'debate' and why 'so-called'? I'd call the discussion I had with belboid on this thread a debate - and quite an interesting one, for me at least - in that it's helped me clarify my own position and to better understand where he's coming from. Why is it a "so called 'debate'" and not a debate or discussion? There's obviously some reason why you termed it a so-called 'debate' - I'm wondering what that might be.

As I indicated already, this 'debate' is more or less the same as it was in the 70s. The agenda on immigration has been set by the right. Then there's the Labour Party, which has appropriated the Tory rhetoric on the issue (qv. Yvette Cooper's use of language). This debate, discussion, call it what you will, on immigration always produces circular, dead-end, arguments. Those who adopt an anti-immigration position will not change their position for anything. Likewise those who take the opposite view.

 

[SpineyNorman]

And there we have it - it's not up for discussion. You're either pro or anti immigration (the latter always implying some form of racism since it's inevitably all about race/national identity in your weird binary world) - no room for nuance - and that's how you'll stay. We can't have a debate, only a 'debate' in which the terms are set by the right. (Even though we've been having IMO a good discussion on this very thread in which the terms are most definitely set by solid left/pro-working class principles - which you must have just completely ignored in order to post the above drivel).

The final two lines are utter bullshit as well. Maybe you've never managed to persuade anyone - and I'm not surprised given the way you approach the subject - but that's not the case for all of us.

 

[nino_savatte]

And there we have it - it's not up for discussion. You're either pro or anti immigration (the latter always implying some form of racism since it's inevitably all about race/national identity in your weird binary world) - no room for nuance - and that's how you'll stay. We can't have a debate, only a 'debate' in which the terms are set by the right. (Even though we've been having IMO a good discussion on this very thread in which the terms are most definitely set by solid left/pro-working class principles - which you must have just completely ignored in order to post the above drivel).

The final two lines are utter bullshit as well. Maybe you've never managed to persuade anyone - and I'm not surprised given the way you approach the subject - but that's not the case for all of us.

Do you feel better now? You talk of "nuances". Where are these nuances? Do you honestly think you can convince a Kipper to change their position on immigration? Good luck with that, buddy.

What you also fail to grasp is the fact that any discussion on immigration has not only been colonised by the right but has also been poisoned by their rhetoric/views on national identity.

But what you appear to be suggesting is that the issues of ethnicity and national identity are not present in these discussions. You're either hopelessly naive or a complete liar.

And all you can say is that my last two lines are "utter bullshit". Laughable.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Do you honestly think you can convince a Kipper to change their position on immigration? Good luck with that, buddy.

You're fucking laughable - do you think people are born with their political views or something? That they are nothing to do with the influences around them? If you genuinely believe this shit why are you even discussing it?

 

[nino_savatte]

You're fucking laughable - do you think people are born with their political views or something? That they are nothing to do with the influences around them? If you genuinely believe this shit why are you even discussing it?

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Delroy Booth]

Do you honestly think you can convince a Kipper to change their position on immigration?

yes.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Those who adopt an anti-immigration position will not change their position for anything. Likewise those who take the opposite view.

I'm talking about what you said. Political views are fixed and immovable, apparently. People adopt a position (presumably not because of anything anyone else says because nobody can change anyone's mind in your bizarre world) and NOTHING can alter it.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Do you feel better now? You talk of "nuances". Where are these nuances?

Maybe reading the thread would be a good start?

Do you honestly think you can convince a Kipper to change their position on immigration? Good luck with that, buddy.

It's all about 'kippers' and 'migration watch' for you isn't it? What about normal people? The bloke down the pub? People at work? I don't need to speculate on whether I can persuade people - I can and have - and I've learned from this process as well.

What you also fail to grasp is the fact that any discussion on immigration has not only been colonised by the right but has also been poisoned by their rhetoric/views on national identity.

Can you point to where, say, the discussion between me and lo siento has been colonised by the right and poisoned by their rhetoric/views on national identity? Should be pretty easy if what you say is true.

But what you appear to be suggesting is that the issues of ethnicity and national identity are not present in these discussions. You're either hopelessly naive or a complete liar.

Depends which discussions really - of course some (most even?) are, especially in the media and establishment circles that you appear to believe dictate the terms on which any of us can discuss the issue. Not all of them though - and as often as not in my experience what's behind concerns about migration among normal people has nothing to do with race or national identity and everything to do with economic uncertainty.

And all you can say is that my last two lines are "utter bullshit". Laughable.

Well they are. look at them again. You're saying nobody will ever change their minds on this issue. It's utter nonsense.

Those who adopt an anti-immigration position will not change their position for anything. Likewise those who take the opposite view.

 

[J Ed]

Those who adopt an anti-immigration position will not change their position for anything. Likewise those who take the opposite view.

I know people who have changed their views on immigration, some starting out as being more in favour of restricted immigration and others more in favour of open immigration. I'm sure that others have too, I can't be an anomaly on that.

It's not like it's a dichotomy anyway though, no one here is advocating the end of all immigration. As far as I can see people are just arguing that the left should not prioritise an alienating no borders position under neoliberalism and instead should highlight the abuses of the current system (G4S run detention centres, state harassment of refugees etc) and work towards a better one.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Something something UKIP something migration watch Daily mail Richard littlejohn. Buddy.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Isn't the whole point of the debate we were having here to try and talk about immigration in the context of neo-liberalism, inequality, globalisation and so on instead of being based on a paranoid xenophobic right-wing framework? That's what I was going for, not being anti-immigration at all but to start the debate on a footing which can get away from this poisonous discourse which, thanks largely to the right-wing media, it has become?

In my experience people are far more receptive to these ideas that you give them credit to, people aren't daft they know that immigration is just a part of a wider process, but there's no public conversation going on that talks about this process instead it's "they're coming here to colonise us! Steal our jobs! Introduce Sharia Law! White genocide! Repel the invaders!!!" so it's our job to frame the debate on immigration in such a way so it can get away from this tinfoil hat stuff into the realm of the real.

 

[J Ed]

BTW for those who are pro-EU, looks like you've got an emboldened ally...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...on-voters-extremist-anti-eu-message-elections

David Cameron will warn voters not to fall for the "extremist" message of those who want to leave the European Union – like Ukip and many within his own party – as he launches the Conservative manifesto for next month's European elections on Thursday afternoon.